MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021047644 · doi:10.1055/s-0029-1233490

Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia: A Critical Appraisal of the Evolution of Feminizing Genitoplasty and the Controversies Surrounding Gender Reassignment

2009· review· en· W2021047644 on OpenAlexaff
Luis H. Braga, João L. Pippi Salle

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pediatric Surgery · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCongenital adrenal hyperplasiaWatchful waitingCritical appraisalAmbiguous genitaliaSex organGeneral surgeryGynecologySurgeryPediatricsPathologyAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is the most common cause of genital ambiguity, its surgical treatment remains controversial and often times difficult, especially in cases of high urethro-vaginal confluence. Many aspects are still uncertain, such as the timing of feminizing genitoplasty and type of surgical technique. The objective of this study is to provide a thorough review of the surgical management of children with CAH, discussing the evolution of feminizing genitoplasty and its different techniques, and also to critically appraise the available literature on the timing of surgical intervention and gender reassignment. Prospective long-term studies evaluating the results of modern feminizing genitoplasty techniques are needed as current evidence is based on outdated operations that are no longer used. To date, there have been no studies comparing early and delayed feminizing genitoplasty with regard to psychological outcomes. All families should be counseled regarding the controversies and treatment options, including the watchful waiting approach.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Pediatric SurgerySame topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207